Cost-Effectiveness of Including a Nurse Specialist in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Primary Care in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Incontinence is an important health problem. Effectively treating incontinence could lead to important health gains in patients and caregivers. Management of incontinence is currently suboptimal, especially in elderly patients. To optimise the provision of incontinence care a global optimum continence service specification (OCSS) was developed. The current study evaluates the costs and effects of implementing this OCSS for community-dwelling patients older than 65 years with four or more chronic diseases in the Netherlands. METHOD: A decision analytic model was developed comparing the current care pathway for urinary incontinence in the Netherlands with the pathway as described in the OCSS. The new care strategy was operationalised as the appointment of a continence nurse specialist (NS) located with the general practitioner (GP). This was assumed to increase case detection and to include initial assessment and treatment by the NS. The analysis used a societal perspective, including medical costs, containment products (out-of-pocket and paid by insurer), home care, informal care, and implementation costs. RESULTS: With the new care strategy a QALY gain of 0.005 per patient is achieved while saving €402 per patient over a 3 year period from a societal perspective. In interpreting these findings it is important to realise that many patients are undetected, even in the new care situation (36%), or receive care for containment only. In both of these groups no health gains were achieved. CONCLUSION: Implementing the OCSS in the Netherlands by locating a NS in the GP practice is likely to reduce incontinence, improve quality of life, and reduce costs. Furthermore, the study also highlighted that various areas of the continence care process lack data, which would be valuable to collect through the introduction of the NS in a study setting.

Cost-effectiveness of involving nurse specialists for adult patients with urinary incontinence in primary care compared to care-as-usual: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To determine the 12-month, societal cost-effectiveness of involving urinary incontinence (UI) nurse specialists in primary care compared to care-as-usual by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: From 2005 until 2008 an economic evaluation was performed alongside a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing UI patients receiving care by nurse specialists with patients receiving care-as-usual by GPs in the Netherlands. One hundred eighty-six adult patients with stress, urgency, or mixed UI were randomly allocated to the intervention and 198 to care-as-usual; they were followed for 1 year. Main outcome measures were Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY(societal) ) based on societal preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol-5D), QALY(patient) based on patient preferences for health outcomes (EuroQol VAS), and Incontinence Severity weighted Life Year (ISLY) based on patient-reported severity and impact of UI (ICIQ-UI SF). Health care resource use, patient and family costs, and productivity costs were assessed. Data were collected by three monthly questionnaires. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrap simulation, and the expected value of perfect information was calculated (EVPI). RESULTS: Compared to care-as-usual, nurse specialist involvement costs € 16,742/QALY(societal) gained. Both QALY(patient) and ISLY yield slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness results. At a threshold of € 40,000/QALY(societal,) the probability that the intervention is cost-effective is 58%. The EVPI amounts to € 78 million. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, we recommend adopting the nurse specialist intervention in primary care, while conducting more research through careful monitoring of the effectiveness and costs of the intervention in routine practice.